Conclusion

Abstract

Martin Griffiths is surely right when he observes that ‘Burton’s works cannot be easily classified within the conventional frameworks of analysis in the study of international relations’ and stresses that ‘Burton has been a trenchant critic of the view that international relations can stand apart from other disciplines in the social sciences.’ At the same time, Griffiths recognises that Burton has produced ‘a unique corpus of work that continues to inspire students of world society today’ (Griffiths, 1999 p. 109). That it cannot easily be classified – in a survey of fifty contemporary thinkers in International Relations, Griffiths places Burton at the head of the queue of ‘Radical/Critical’ thinkers, with Johan Galtung and Richard Falk, though there is no place for Kenneth Boulding – may help to explain the relative lack of engagement with much of Burton’s work in some quarters. Yet it may be that Burton is being engaged in the light of the mounting problems of comprehension, taking on greater relevance in view of the problems besetting International Relations.